QT: Who is trans “inclusive” language really for?

submitted by BiologyIsReal from self.GCdebatesQT

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

a) this is not a current definition of trans, but if it were, everyone who was trans would get full SRS, and the questions of biological difference would at least be significantly reduced (eg, the issue of people with penises being allowed into women's shelters, prisons, dressing rooms etc would not come up)

Not everyone can get everything ,partialy SRS because isn't covered everywhere and is expensive, especially if it is to be done well , partialy because the strength of gender dysphoria can vary (and aparently the strength can even vary depending on which body part it concerns, like having a lot regarding the chest but little regarding the genitalia or vice versa). Also, I hardly see gender critical people be any more accepting of the "years on Hormones, multiple rounds of FFS, post-buttom-surgery, unclockable-if-they-dont-tell-you"-level trans woman compared to the "day-one, pre-everything still trying to get rid of the beard stubble"-level trans woman.

b) not accepting your body doesn't mean your body isn't real. Anorexic people or depressed people or plenty of other mentally troubled people (especially teenagers whose bodies are changing) cannot accept their bodies. Some of them go through years of suffering and manage to come through the other side thanks to various therapies or medications or life changes. Not accepting their body does not mean they can determine an inner reality that others cannot see. It means they have a mental problem. One way to deal with this may be to assuage the pain by trying to make reality better match their inner vision, but it doesn't mean that they never had the body they struggled with.

I don't think any transgender people are really claiming they never had the body they struggled with. They might try to keep it a secret if they are stealth, but that is not the same.

Don't you see that your own definitions already show that there is NO NEED for that?

No, I don't.

You cannot define the word woman without using "or" to separate cisgender women and transgender women into two parts. Why do we need one word for the both of them?

because, at the end of the day, part of the transgender identity is also the desire to be socially accepted as part of the same group as the cisgender people of the respective gender.

If you demand, that "man" and "woman" are purely biological terms, then you also have to replace every instance of the words "men" and "women" were the present sexed anatomy doesn't/shouldn't matter with new words meaning "cisgender men and transgender men" and "cisgender women and transgender women".

I truly have no idea what you are talking about.

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"? Because if you insist on "men" and "women" being biological terms instead of social ones, that is what the word "woman" would mean. It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

How would you like it, if every instance of the word "woman" would be replaced with the word "ovary-haver"? Because if you insist on "men" and "women" being biological terms instead of social ones, that is what the word "woman" would mean. It would mean, that every use of the words "woman" and "man" would be reducing the person in question to their gonads, with no regards to their identity.

No, this is not true. The words woman and man communicate three things: 1) that the organism in question is a human being, in other words a person; 2) that he or she is an adult human being, as opposed to an infant, child, adolescent or teenager; and 3) that the adult person is either male or female. The latter terms designate the two clearly different, broad categories of human beings - and other animals as well as plants - that exist based on having developed in utero the anatomy to have the potential capacity at some point in life to play the male or female role in the reproduction of species.

These words don't reduce anyone to their gonads, they just designate which of the two groups of human adults individuals belong to. In both "adult human female" and "adult human male," the words that designate sex - female or male - do not negate or override the "adult" or "human" part. Sex is only one of three pieces of information about someone conveyed by these words.

Everyone knows that there is much more to human adults than just our sex, LOL. And that female and male human beings of all ages can have any kind of personality.

In English, there are tons of words that separate the adults of all the different animal species from the young of the same species: horse v foal; hen v chick; fox, bear, lion and so on vs cub; dog vs puppy; cat vs kitten; duck vs duckling; pig vs piglet; cow or bull vs calf. And as my last example shows, there are different words to distinguish adults of most animal species by their sex too: bull vs calf; stallion vs mare; buck vs doe; cock vs hen; ram vs ewe (in sheep, the young is called a lamb); lion vs lioness, and so on.

When people use such words as bull, cow, buck, doe, stallion, mare, ram, ewe, cock, hen, lion, lioness, we can all picture in our minds what the particular animal spoken of looks like. No one is reducing them to their genitals!

On the contrary, when we call up a mental image of a lion or lioness, what we tend to focus on is the mane, or lack thereof, and the size of the animal. When we call up an image of a deer or buck, or a bull or cow, we tend to focus on the antlers and horns as well as the relative overall body size of the male and female animals in question. When we call up mental images of a cock or rooster, a hen and a chick, we all see the animals in all their feathery fullness - no one envisions their gonads. We really don't think of their gonads at all. (I personally can vividly picture what a rooster/cock, hen and chick look like right now, but I have no idea what their gonads look like, or where they are even located.)

with no regards to their identity.

Yes, it's true that the terms under discussion are used and given without regard to any person's or animal's identity. That's coz they're not markers or badges of "identity" - particularly not in the newfangled way the word "identity" is used today, meaning as a shorthand for "ideal self" or the kind of person an individual human might want or prefer to be, or believes he or she should be or insists he or she really is, contrary to the actual facts. These words were invented to be statements of observed, verifiable, objective fact - to reflect the reality of what an individual person, animal or plant actually is. They were never intended to indicate the desires, fantasies or claims that run counter to objective reality that some humans have about themselves.

I'm totally in support of people inventing new words to designate the new ways some people like you conceptualize their/your own selves and want to be seen in the world. The problem is, trans people and other gender identity ideologues are trying to seize and utterly change the meaning of words that have existed, been commonly understood and in use for thousands and thousands of years - and they are doing so without any consultation with, or concern for, the rest of the population that already knows what these words really mean. Moreover, some members of the trans community are trying to take the words for particular groups of people - such as woman, man, mother, father, daughter, sister, feminist - from the very groups to whom those words actually apply. Which is not going to end well for the trans people. Coz those words are already taken. They're not up for grabs.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, this is not true. The words woman and man communicate three things: 1) that the organism in question is a human being, in other words a person; 2) that he or she is an adult human being, as opposed to an infant, child, adolescent or teenager; and 3) that the adult person is either male or female. The latter terms designate the two clearly different, broad categories of human beings - and other animals as well as plants - that exist based on having developed in utero the anatomy to have the potential capacity at some point in life to play the male or female role in the reproduction of species.

These words don't reduce anyone to their gonads, they just designate which of the two groups of human adults individuals belong to. In both "adult human female" and "adult human male," the words that designate sex - female or male - do not negate or override the "adult" or "human" part. Sex is only one of three pieces of information about someone conveyed by these words.

Except that, in the vast majority of cases it is already clear that someone is talking about an adult human before the words "men" or "women" are used, so the only difference inm conveyed information between "men"/"women" and "person" would be what gonads you think that person has.

In English, there are tons of words that separate the adults of all the different animal species from the young of the same species: horse v foal; hen v chick; fox, bear, lion and so on vs cub; dog vs puppy; cat vs kitten; duck vs duckling; pig vs piglet; cow or bull vs calf. And as my last example shows, there are different words to distinguish adults of most animal species by their sex too: bull vs calf; stallion vs mare; buck vs doe; cock vs hen; ram vs ewe (in sheep, the young is called a lamb); lion vs lioness, and so on.

When people use such words as bull, cow, buck, doe, stallion, mare, ram, ewe, cock, hen, lion, lioness, we can all picture in our minds what the particular animal spoken of looks like. No one is reducing them to their genitals!

On the contrary, when we call up a mental image of a lion or lioness, what we tend to focus on is the mane, or lack thereof, and the size of the animal. When we call up an image of a deer or buck, or a bull or cow, we tend to focus on the antlers and horns as well as the relative overall body size of the male and female animals in question. When we call up mental images of a cock or rooster, a hen and a chick, we all see the animals in all their feathery fullness - no one envisions their gonads. We really don't think of their gonads at all. (I personally can vividly picture what a rooster/cock, hen and chick look like right now, but I have no idea what their gonads look like, or where they are even located.)

And just like that you shot yourself in the kneecaps. Because when I look at this people 1 2 I see a woman and a man, respectively, not the other way around - which is what you insist - because I don't reduce people to their gonads and see people looking like my mental pictures for women and men, respectively. Ergo, trans women are women and trans men are men.

These words were invented to be statements of observed, verifiable, objective fact - to reflect the reality of what an individual person, animal or plant actually is. They were never intended to indicate the desires, fantasies or claims that run counter to objective reality that some humans have about themselves.

and observed, verifiable, objective fact is, that a passing transgender person is going to be perceived as and treated as their gender identity. And that this is a good reason to socially sort transgender people and cisgender people of the same gender identity (trans men and cis men, trans women and cis women) together. ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343753789_We_Are_All_Women_Barriers_and_Facilitators_to_Inclusion_of_Transgender_Women_in_HIV_Treatment_and_Support_Services_Designed_for_Cisgender_Women )

The problem is, trans people and other gender identity ideologues are trying to seize and utterly change the meaning of words that have existed, been commonly understood and in use for thousands and thousands of years - and they are doing so without any consultation with, or concern for, the rest of the population that already knows what these words really mean. Moreover, some members of the trans community are trying to take the words for particular groups of people - such as woman, man, mother, father, daughter, sister, feminist - from the very groups to whom those words actually apply.

And if there was a vote on whether "woman" and "man" should be defined by identity and lived experience or by gonads, that vote would actually go with the former 3, 4 . And your examples undermines your point further: adoptive parents are, usually, called "mother" and "father" despite not being the biological mothers/fathers of their children. So, clearly, those are socially defined terms.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Because when I look at this people 1 JPG 2 JPG I see a woman and a man, respectively, not the other way around -

That's on you, then. People who use hormones and surgeries to alter their appearance so they look more or less like the opposite sex - or rather, so they look like the stereotyped way sexist people think all people of the opposite sex look - do not actually become the opposite sex. Only superficial sexists confuse appearing like sexist stereotypes of one sex with actually being that sex.

You and others who share your superficial view must find theater, films, drag acts, Halloween, costume parties and the dressing-up box at nursery school very confounding if you don't know the difference between looking a part and being that way for real.

Also, your definition is entirely dependent on sight - and on modern methods of electric lighting being present, operating and switched on during the hours of the day-night cycle that are dark as well. At night during a blackout, or out in the wild in the pitch black without a torch, you'd have to rely on other senses. Such as touch. The artificial chest orbs some males have implanted in their chests feel nothing like women's breasts. And as blind people can tell you, the shape of a woman's and a man's head is different. So is the relationship between the width of the shoulders to the hips, and the size and shape of feet and hands.

adoptive parents are, usually, called "mother" and "father" despite not being the biological mothers/fathers of their children. So, clearly, those are socially defined terms.

That's because mother, father and parent aren't just nouns, they're also verbs - and have been verbs for a long, long time. Childrearing is an activity, something a person does - and there are many names for it, such as raising children, caring and bringing up a child. In the 1970s, people invented a new sex-neutral term to add to mothering and fathering: parenting. But the words woman, boy and girl are nouns only. There is no verb "to woman", "or "to girl" or "to boy." Girling, boying and womaning are not words or activities.

There is a verb form of man, but not in the sense you mean. The verb "to man" means

1) (of personnel) work at, run, or operate (a place or piece of equipment) or defend (a fortification): the firemen manned the pumps and fought the blaze.

2) provide someone to fill (a post or office): the chaplaincy was formerly manned by the cathedral.

3) archaic fortify the spirits or courage of: he manned himself with dauntless air.

When the new word "parenting" was invented in the 1970s, some people harrumphed over it, but most people didn't object - and coz it served a purpose, it was widely adopted. One of the reasons that parenting was widely accepted is that it not change or diminish the meaning of parent, nor did it change diminish the longstanding meaning of the words mothering and fathering, or of mother or father. (I know this full well coz I happened to write a newspaper article about it at the time.)

If trans people came up with their/your own brand-new words for yourselves instead of trying to take other people's words and utterly change the meaning of them, no one would have a problem with it. In fact, many people would back you. Including me.

But instead, trans ideologues are hellbent on seizing already-extant words like woman, man, girl and boy and unmooring them from their longstanding meanings and basis in objective fact, then giving them all an entirely new meaning that reduces being a woman and a man to appearing like the sexist stereotypes that some people associate women and men and boys and girls with. Which many people both sexes find profoundly sexist, insulting, appropriative and arrogant. You're trying to tell the entire rest of the human race that all there is to being a man/boy or woman/girl is playacting, LARPing, cosplay - basically just looking the part, and the part as defined by superficial sexists to boot. Which not only ignores biology, science, medicine and how we all came into the world, it also totally ignores and undermines the "lived reality" of everyone else on earth and makes you trans ideologues the sole arbiters of what's true and allowed. And most people won't go along with that.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's on you, then. People who use hormones and surgeries to alter their appearance so they look more or less like the opposite sex - or rather, so they look like the stereotyped way sexist people think all people of the opposite sex look - do not actually become the opposite sex. Only superficial sexists confuse appearing like sexist stereotypes of one sex with actually being that sex.

First, you were the one bringing up the visual part, with your "mental image"-comment. Second, as I already explained multiple times, "woman" and "man" denote social categories, not sex categories, therefore it is irrelevant what kind of gonads they might or might not have. And precisely because I don't reduce the terms "man" and "woman" to the gonads, I see the transgender man as a man and the transgender woman as a woman.

You and others who share your superficial view must find theater, films, drag acts, Halloween, costume parties and the dressing-up box at nursery school very confounding if you don't know the difference between looking a part and being that way for real.

there is a huge difference between medical transitioning and playing dress-up. A transgender woman doesn't take her breasts and femminized face of at the end of the day, and neither does a transgender man his flat chest and masculinized face.

Also, your definition is entirely dependent on sight - and on modern methods of electric lighting being present, operating and switched on during the hours of the day-night cycle that are dark as well. At night during a blackout, or out in the wild in the pitch black without a torch, you'd have to rely on other senses. Such as touch.

First, again, you were the one bringing up visuals. Second, most people will react rather negative if someone they don't know tries to use senses other than sight or sound to determine on how to interact with them.

The artificial chest orbs some males have implanted in their chests feel nothing like women's breasts.

First, not all transgender women need implants to have breasts (breast growth from HRT varies depending on the person and specific medication used), second, quite a lot of cisgender women get breast implants too.

And as blind people can tell you, the shape of a woman's and a man's head is different.

Foppington's law confirmed again.

Once bigotry or self-loathing permeate a given community, it is only a matter of time before deep metaphysical significance is assigned to the shape of human skulls.

That's because mother, father and parent aren't just nouns, they're also verbs - and have been verbs for a long, long time. Childrearing is an activity, something a person does - and there are many names for it, such as raising children, caring and bringing up a child. In the 1970s, people invented a new sex-neutral term to add to mothering and fathering: parenting. But the words woman, boy and girl are nouns only. There is no verb "to woman", "or "to girl" or "to boy." Girling, boying and womaning are not words or activities.

There is a verb form of man, but not in the sense you mean. The verb "to man" means

What does that have to do with anything?

When the new word "parenting" was invented in the 1970s, some people harrumphed over it, but most people didn't object - and coz it served a purpose, it was widely adopted. One of the reasons that parenting was widely accepted is that it not change or diminish the meaning of parent, nor did it change diminish the longstanding meaning of the words mothering and fathering, or of mother or father. (I know this full well coz I happened to write a newspaper article about it at the time.)

Including transgender men/transgender women into the words "men"/"women" does not diminish their meanings. Your attempt to define "man" and "woman" as being solely based on what gonads someone has does.

But instead, trans ideologues are hellbent on seizing already-extant words like woman, man, girl and boy and unmooring them from their longstanding meanings and basis in objective fact, then giving them all an entirely new meaning that reduces being a woman and a man to appearing like the sexist stereotypes that some people associate women and men and boys and girls with. Which many people both sexes find profoundly sexist, insulting, appropriative and arrogant. You're trying to tell the entire rest of the human race that all there is to being a man/boy or woman/girl is playacting, LARPing, cosplay - basically just looking the part, and the part as defined by superficial sexists to boot.

No, being a "man"/"woman" is not playacting, LARPing or cosplay. It is the lived experience of being perceived as, therefore being treated as and therefore living the life of a man/woman. That is a far more meaningfull way of expressing what it means to be a man/woman then whether reducing it to whether the person in question has testicles or ovaries.

And most people won't go along with that.

And in that, you are wrong. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/07/16/where-does-british-public-stand-transgender-rights , https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331998753_Public_Support_for_Transgender_Rights_A_Twenty-three_Country_Survey